Reacting to the Politico article on conservative media failures, Michael Warren pretends that October 2012 never happened:

Truth is, there were many in the conservative media warning that Mitt Romney was not running a winning campaign.

If we replace “many” with the word few, and qualify it by saying that most of this happened in August and September when Romney was clearly trailing and couldn’t seem to do anything right, Warren’s claim holds up. As far as conservative media’s coverage of the election and the polls during the last month is concerned, his claim is almost entirely false. Even the few examples Warren cites in his post date to early or late September*. Trailing in the polls after a lackluster Republican convention, the campaign had continued to suffer multiple setbacks during September. At that point, a number of conservative pundits began to sound the alarm that things were going awry, which earned them angry rebukes from conservative activists for their supposed defeatism. All of that disappeared after the first debate, and it never returned. There were some conservatives that didn’t go out of their way to insist that most polling outfits were getting things badly wrong, and they did much better in anticipating a Romney loss and Republican setbacks in the Senate, but these conservatives were atypical.

During October and early November, there was overwhelming agreement at most conservative media outlets that Romney wason trackto win, and according to the estimates of some pundits he was expected to win decisively. This was based on many faulty assumptions, including misreadings of the make-up of the electorate, the importance of Republican enthusiasm, and how late-deciders would vote, and these were tied to even more significant misreadings of the economic situation and the public’s mood. They thought they were running against another Carter, and discovered too late that people outside their coalition didn’t see him that way. If your candidate’s core message is that the incumbent is a huge failure, and most voters don’t know what you’re talking about, he was never likely to overcome the disadvantages of being a challenger.

* Note that the Ingraham quote Warren links to is based on her assumption that 2012 was a “gimme election” that Romney ought to have been winning easily. So a certain amount of the conservative criticism of Romney’s campaign was based on a major misunderstanding of the political landscape. This citation demonstrates how cut off from the rest of the country conservative media figures had become. It is proof of the attitude described in the article that Warren is trying to refute.

The ironic part is this reminds me of my frustrations in many far left movements which always suggested that people were always a stones throw away from revolution. It was nonsense in that political context and nonsense to suggest there was some landslide groundswell to rout Obama.

What surprises me is how much ones media world may result in believing what is obviously not happening around you in the real world. Everyone is insular and picks and chooses their world to conform to their viewpoint, but its hard to imagine going to the grocery store and not seeing that, well, there isn’t some situation ripe to blow up.

It’s obvious that Republicans misread the polls — placed too much faith in their own turnout and Democratic apathy. But they ought not discount the impact of voter fraud, e.g. the military ballots and the registration-roll anomalies. This election stinks of scandal, Chicago style scandal.

That brings us to the useless media. It seems we’ll never get the answers on any of this — or the ongoing, apparent cover-ups. Perhaps we need yet another “estate” of society to check the excesses of the press.

Those still in favor of small government ought to forsake the current system: Even were we to reset the nation to its constitutional foundations, what would then prevent the demographics and the press from taking us back to this fiscal cliff?

All due respect, DL, I think you should consider the possibility that conservative media figures are not at all cut off from the rest of the country, and in fact know exactly where the rest of the country stands. Their jobs are not to dispense dispassionate analysis. Their duty, in good times and bad, is to use their persuasive skills to move their readership/viewership/listenership as far right as they can. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these media figures are doing a pretty good job; without Fox, AM radio talkers and maybe even a few rabid print and online pundits, I suspect we might be looking at a Democratic House, too.

Not to say liberal commentators don’t do the same thing in the opposite direction, of course. I do suspect liberals in general are a bit more realistic, though; we tend to think every victory is an upset.

I thought it was funny that Hugh Hewitt, on his website the day before the election, cited Rasmussen as evidence of movement toward the Republicans. Could there be a better illustration of the problem?

Many of my fellow conservatives were not only expecting a Romney win but a landslide. Reading your blog and following several pollsters, I was somewhat prepared for the defeat (even though I thought Romney would pull it off at the end–wishful thinking looking back on it).

You were right and I was wrong that Ryan would help in Wisconsin. He couldn’t even carry his own district! I appreciate that you were always respectful of other opinions even when you disagreed.

Maybe in the future you could spotlight conservatives with convictions whom we should look to for leadership. The good doctor from Oklahoma is somebody I’d like to learn more about.

I am a Democrat and a liberal one at that. I do feel like our party has moved considerably toward the center in recent years, which really is totally at odds with the conservative media narrative–Obamacare being the obvious example (it being the brainchild of the Heritage Foundation). But in other areas Dems have comprised–gun control, immigration, the War on Drugs/criminal justice issues. Again, most of these are issues that conservatives CLAIM Democrats are in the process of “liberalizing,” but clearly aren’t (except for pot, and that’s a states thing at this point).

My question to you is, why do conservatives think that Dems have or are in the process of “ramming” policy down their throats when most of the stuff is stuff that the GOP could themselves have accomplished and not even had to explain themselves? It really seems like conservatives are continually moving the goalposts.

Nick has got it right. Dems have moved to the center over the years. Obama is a centrist if you look at history. Most of his policies were supported by republicans not that many years ago. Republicans and winning in moving the discussion to the right, but losing elections because their leadership shifts dramatically farther than people can accept.

I can’t speak for all conservatives since there are several factions in the conservative movement. If I were in the Senate, I would have a voting record most like Rand Paul who tries to reduce spending for both the welfare and warfare state. Economically, though, I am more of a populist than a libertarian (against free trade, break up the big banks, etc.) I believe your claim about the Dems moving to the middle is more perception than reality. The culture has moved to the left, so your party doesn’t sound as liberal as it used to. On gun control, I think the party had to modify in order to survive. That’s why you can win Senate seats in Montana and North Dakota. On immigration, both parties sell out. Our leaders sell out to Big Business for the cheap labor. Your party sells out the blacks and working class whites, who vote Democratic, but lose their jobs to illegal immigrants who work for less. On national defense, both parties support too much meddling and nation building overseas. So on that one, I guess you guys did move to “the middle”. You also have a point on Obamacare, the right came up with the individual mandate to stop Hillarycare. (in all fairness, I have to admit we deserve Obamacare because we didn’t propose any alternatives from 1995 on.
There is a lot of nonsense on Fox News and talk radio. As I said above there are few differences on things like national security and immigration. I guess what bugs us the most is the mainstream media always covering for Obama. The President and most of your leaders are extremists on abortion. Our Todd Akins are held up to public ridicule, but does the media ever talk about partial birth abortion? Do they ever point out that the US has some of the most radical abortion laws in the world? Little attention is paid to such scandals as government grants to cronies for so called green companies that quickly go belly-up. While the country suffers, the Obamas travel like royalty and live it up. We were lied to about Benghazi. The administration knew it was terrorism but chose to blame a stupid video. When Romney tried to expose it during the second debate, the moderator stood up for Obama. Is it any wonder that many on the right believe the government and the media are in cahoots? I could cite more examples. In summary, I agree with part of your position, but hope you can understand some of the frustration on our side (both with your party and the leadership of our own who often give us rhetoric but not much else).

What I think is interesting is that I have not seen anyone bring up the fact that in the week or so before the election all that the mainstream media outlets could talk about was how the race was a “dead heat”, when the data pointed out that this was not quite so. Looking back, this seems like it was mostly done for ratings and added dramatic value on election night.

frum made the point loudly after the election isthatthe conservative media ENTERTAINMENT complex have an intrest in creating a conspiracy which is do not watch anyone elsebecausethe MSM will lie to you, so their viewers only watch / listen to them. They haveno interest in telling the truth. They have an intrest in creating fear and controversy.

However once reality hits, like the election some of the audience realise they were being lied to, others see conspiracy were there simply is not.

The terrible socialist revoloution is simply not happening, but it must feel like it on a daily basis if you not only want to repeal Obama care but also repeal medicate and Medicaid and social security. You will get more and more frustrated if that is your view because there is not a majority in the country that agrees with you.

In worldwide politics the difference between Romney and Obama was marginal, Benghazzi was screwed up but it was a relatively small tactical operation with a small number of casualties it was not a worldwide conspiracy with the President deliberately killing Americans.

from an admiditly left European perespective, the mainstream media likes to hit those that make themselfs highly vulnerable to it by being chaotic/gaffe prone etc. The Republicans were more so than the Democrats, so it is somewhat hard to accept a strong “bias in the mainstream media”. We see it more as Fox moving the goalposts to the right, until a point where further to the right there is only looniness.
The mass media likes going after loons, much much easier and welcoming targets.
Fox news is based on the assumption that Obama is an (at least) Marxist communist out to destroy america, anyone who does not buy that assumption, and very few people outside of the USA do, will largely react with “what the heck are those guys talking about” to Fox News.

Obama, on foreign policy, was Bush Junior with less catastrophic failures. On the interior, he forced through a law that was brought up by Republicans in the first place. He didnt exactly roll back ther surveilliance state, he enfocred immigration laws more strongly than Bush, the only thing he is “perhaps” left in would be “social issues” like Abortion, which do not interest me or many European very much.
In response, the right wing media makes him out as a moonbat, and in response to that, most other media wonders what the heck the right wing media and those supporting them are smoking.

It’s obvious that Republicans misread the polls — placed too much faith in their own turnout and Democratic apathy.

[Emphasis mine – mb]

This sentence, and the ones the followed it, nicely sum up the problem of the Conservative Media Bubble.

Republicans did not MISREAD the polls. They DENIED them. And it’s clear that, even at the time, there was no solid basis in fact for that denial. It was a denial based on *belief*.

This inability to admit fault, coupled with a seemingly limitless ability to imagine conspiracies to explain away losses, means that those inside the CEC or Conservative Inc Bubble (both hosts and audience) never have to he held accountable for their actions.

As you see above, when Conservative Inc is wrong, it doesn’t matter because the Dems and Libs had already stolen the election.

If you think about it, there really isn’t ‘conservative’ media. This would suggest there are TV and radio talk shows promoting constitutional and republican ideas. The only ones doing this as far as I know are Mike Church, John Stossel, and Peter Schiff, although there may be some others. Fox News, Hannity, and Rush are basically ‘GOP’ media, blatantly cheer-leading for their side, and choosing to believe the polls were rigged, even though it would not have been business prudent for pollsters such as Gallup and Rasmussen to rig the results.

They, the GOP media, has essentially turned into the type of media they so often rail against.